10815301 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 14, 2014)

Ex Parte Raverdy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 14, 2014

10815301 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 14, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 10/815,301 03/31/2004 Pierre Guillaume Raverdy 80398P586 7293 8791 7590 04/15/2014 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN 1279 Oakmead Parkway Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040 EXAMINER SHAW, PELING ANDREW ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2444 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/15/2014 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte PIERRE GUILLAUME RAVERDY and ATSUSHI SHIONOZAKI ____________ Appeal 2011-005756 Application 10/815,301 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE THE NON-STATUTORY REJECTION On this record, we find the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 27-30 under 35 U.S.C. §101. Appeal 2011-005756 Application 10/815,301 2 We agree with Appellants the Examiner has not provided a sufficient basis for the rejection. See App. Br. 6-9. The Examiner contends because the Specification states “some module on the device may dynamically create a WEP key” (emphasis added), each of the claimed “well-known ad-hoc group (WKG) creator” and “session-based ad-hoc group (SBG) creator” is software. See Ans. 3. We agree with Appellants other parts of the Specification discuss the creator terms instead. See App. Br. 7-8. As a result, the Examiner’s contentions are insufficient grounds for the rejections. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 27- 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION On this record, we find the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §102. We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Brief, the Examiner’s rejection and the Examiner’s response to the Appellants’ arguments. We concur with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding Vasisht (US 2004/0133689 A1) discloses “creating a session-based ad-hoc group (SBG) within a well-known ad-hoc group (WKG) for impromptu interactions among unrelated mobile users” as recited in independent claim 1.1 The Examiner does not adequately explain, and we do not see, how the cited Vasisht passages disclose creating a session-based ad-hoc group (SBG) within a well-known ad-hoc group (WKG) for impromptu interactions 1 Appellants raise additional arguments. Because the identified issue is dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional arguments. Appeal 2011-005756 Application 10/815,301 3 among unrelated mobile users. As a result, the Examiner has not presented sufficient basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-6, 14-19, and 27-30 for the same or similar reasons. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION We do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 7, 12-13, 20, and 25-26 under 35 U.S.C. §103. The Examiner cites an additional reference Krantz (US 7,284,062 B2) for those claims. Because the Examiner does not rely on Krantz for the disputed claim limitation, Krantz does not remedy the deficiencies discussed above. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 8-11, and 21-24. The Examiner cites an additional reference Feeney (Feeny et al., “Spontaneous Networking: An Application-oriented Approach to Ad Hoc Networking,” Communications Magazine, IEEE, (2001) http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.20.8340) for those claims. Because the Examiner does not rely on Feeney for the disputed claim limitation, Feeney does not remedy the deficiencies discussed above. DECISION The Examiner’s decision (1) rejecting claims 27-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and (2) rejecting claims 1-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed. REVERSED Appeal 2011-005756 Application 10/815,301 4 tj